Abstract: The provisions of patent infringement claim in our country mainly originated from regulations of the real right object in the civil law. Confined to the traditional theory of civil law, it has become a common practice in the field of patent. Article 26 of Patent Law Judicial Interpretation(Ⅱ)is regarded as a breakthrough. It is difficult to define the public interest and reasonable costs. The current patent system in our country has not defined these concepts above as well. The United States has made useful attempts in the application of restrictions on injunction and alternative measures. From the legislative evolution and the existing judicial practice, the public interest has nothing to do with the nature of the enterprise and the nature of the patent. It should be strictly limited in the areas such as public safety, public health, which have been stipulated by TRIPs. Article 26 may also apply when the patentee abuses the patent against the public interest. Reasonable costs are different from the voluntary royalties and compulsory licensing fees, however, it should be the full relief given to the infringer under the premise of the loss of reasonable compensation for the right. In the definition of reasonable costs, the case Georgia-Pacific which founded 15 factors to determine the future use fee brings instructive enlightenment. In addition, the patent infringement claims restriction should not be extended to temporary restraining order.